Michael D. Griffin, the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, may be the most intellectually gifted public servant in the entire Trump Administration. He holds seven academic degrees in applied physics, aerospace engineering, electrical engineering and other demanding fields. When he was selected to head NASA in 2005, he was working on an eighth degree in computer science. He has occupied senior positions at some of the world's most respected aerospace research organizations.

You could probably plug Griffin into any technical job in the government and get good results. But the area where he is best known is space. How well known? A 2010 survey by the Space Foundation ranked him as one of the nation's most popular space heroes. You usually have to be an astronaut to achieve that kind of honor. And there's one other thing about Mike Griffin -- he's not the kind of team player who will go along with a bad plan for the sake of unity. When he sees something he doesn't like, he asks a lot of hard questions.

Which is why the Air Force officials overseeing the Pentagon's space program better be scrubbing their PowerPoint presentations for when the new Under Secretary comes calling. If there's a problem in their plans, Griffin is likely to find it, and fast. I'm betting that it won't take long for him to start probing how the Air Force backed into its current, high-risk strategy for assuring access to space when it already is using launch vehicles with perfect performance records that can reach every national-security reference orbit.

United Launch Alliance's Atlas V launch vehicle has a perfect launch record, but its first stage uses a Russian engine. The Pentagon's new tech chief will need to decide whether and when it is prudent to shift to a new engine and vehicle combination ULA is proposing.

U.S. Air Force photo/George Roberts

The new launch strategy got kick-started when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and Congress discovered that the most heavily used rocket in the military launch fleet depended on a Russian-made engine for its first stage. Congress directed that the Pentagon cease relying on Russian technology by 2022, and proceeded to fund the development of new American-made rocket engines. In the aftermath of Ukraine, it seemed kind of crazy that the U.S. was relying on Russian technology to launch spy satellites and other critical spacecraft.

The Air Force, lead service for military space efforts, cobbled together a strategy for getting rid of the Russian engines that, at least on its face, seemed reasonable enough. It wanted at least two U.S.-based commercial launch service providers that could meet all national security launch requirements. Having two would assure access to space even if one encountered problems, and also provide a basis for money-saving competition of launch opportunities. The Air Force is currently considering proposals from several sources.

Like I said, this all seems reasonable on its face. But the closer you look, the riskier the strategy appears. For starters, as I pointed out in a Forbes piece last week, the last time the Air Force tried to rely on commercial products and processes for its space needs, the plan collapsed along with the dot-com boom. Commercial demand for space services turns out to be too fickle to rely on as a core feature in any plan for assuring military access to space.

And then there's the fact that some military missions require placing very heavy payloads in high orbits. There is no commercial counterpart for these missions. Under the terms of the solicitation the Air Force released, the winning commercial launch providers must be able to reach all nine national-security reference orbits, which necessitates developing launch capabilities beyond anything the commercial world is likely to require.

The biggest defect in the Air Force's strategy, though, is its determination to buy launch services as a commodity rather than owning any of the related assets. This results in turning over to the providers most of the responsibility for deciding how they will deliver their services. In the case of United Launch Alliance, a Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture, this has led to a plan for retiring both of the military's most reliable launch vehicles and replacing them with a new launch vehicle called Vulcan powered by engines burning methane.

ULA, once the military's only certified provider of launch services, made this decision because Elon Musk's SpaceX is undercutting its offerings in the marketplace with the lower-priced Falcon 9 launch vehicle. ULA elected to form a partnership with Blue Origin, the space startup funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, to develop a replacement for the Russian engine on its Atlas V rocket and the new launch vehicle that will use the engine. Bezos is one of the few people in America who is wealthier than Musk, and like Musk he is a space enthusiast.

So President Trump was on to something last week when he highlighted the role that dueling billionaires now play in advancing U.S. space technology. But here's the problem: both the Bezos engine and the Raptor engine that Musk plans to develop as a replacement for the engine used on his Falcon 9 are powered by methane -- in effect, liquid natural gas. Nobody has ever built methane engines this big before, and there are inevitable risks involved. The risks are increased if the new engines must then be integrated with new launch vehicles.

There's nothing wrong with trying to develop innovative propulsion concepts, but remember, the biggest driver of the Air Force's new launch strategy is the need to stop using Russian engines by 2022. Turning to methane-powered propulsion that must be fielded on a tight schedule doesn't facilitate this outcome, it complicates the challenge. In other words, what looks like a solution to the business challenge that ULA faces could be a problem for the government customer if the new technology doesn't become available in a timely fashion.

The obvious alternative is to keep flying ULA's Atlas V launch vehicle with a new engine based on the same technology used in the Russian engines. Aerojet Rocketdyne, a modest contributor to my think tank, is developing such an engine that will be tested next year. Once Blue Origin's methane-powered engine proves itself and the proposed Vulcan launch vehicle is certified, ULA can then shift to the new technology. But beginning the transition before new technology is proven clearly entails dangers for the military space program.

Unfortunately, the Air Force's hands-off approach to securing launch services in the future largely precludes it from second-guessing the business decisions of its commercial providers. So instead of moving to assure that existing, proven launch vehicles remain viable after Russian engines cease to be available, the Air Force is backing into a situation where its access to certain critical reference orbits may no longer be assured. Or perhaps it is backing into continued reliance on Russian engines.

Either way, it's a safe bet that the incoming Under Secretary for Research and Engineering will be taking a close look at whether the Air Force's plan makes sense. Mike Griffin understands space launch about as well as anybody in Washington, and if he detects too much risk in the current Air Force roadmap, he may push for major changes. If, on the other hand, he decides that the Air Force is on the right vector, that's as close as we are likely to come to a definitive verdict on the correct way forward.